Author Topic: moving unreliable Allies  (Read 5889 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

andrew

  • Guest
Re: moving unreliable Allies
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2009, 03:21:16 AM »
It's not easy to rearrange troops when none of them can move closer to any enemy within 800p - for example rear ranks/reserves  cannot move forward so most of it has to be done by retiring away from teh enemy.
That is the way we play it at our club - you can move away from the enemy if you are within 800 paces, but you cannot move closer to known enemy if you are within, or the move would take you within, 800 paces.

LawrenceG

  • Guest
Re: moving unreliable Allies
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2009, 08:57:53 AM »
no - where do you get hat from?

Or provoking?  Heck you're already on a battlefield with "intent"!!

They can move to rearrange their troops as they see fit - within the limitations of being unreliable - which hopefully will be "properly" written some time soon.

It's not easy to rearrange troops when none of them can move closer to any enemy within 800p - for example rear ranks/reserves  cannot move forward so most of it has to be done by retiring away from teh enemy.

Possibly with the intent, resulting from a behind-the scenes negotiations, or political calculations, of changing sides. If the enemy see you preparing to attack them they are likely to think the deal is off, or be somewhat doubtful when you say "We were on your side all along, honest."

Sorry, it wasn't clear from your original post whether or not you thought some restriction was needed, only that this one was pointless. Do you have something less pointless, but still limiting, to suggest?

william

  • Guest
Re: moving unreliable Allies
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2009, 10:15:28 AM »
no - where do you get hat from?

Or provoking?  Heck you're already on a battlefield with "intent"!!

They can move to rearrange their troops as they see fit - within the limitations of being unreliable - which hopefully will be "properly" written some time soon.

It's not easy to rearrange troops when none of them can move closer to any enemy within 800p - for example rear ranks/reserves  cannot move forward so most of it has to be done by retiring away from teh enemy.

Possibly with the intent, resulting from a behind-the scenes negotiations, or political calculations, of changing sides. If the enemy see you preparing to attack them they are likely to think the deal is off, or be somewhat doubtful when you say "We were on your side all along, honest."

Sorry, it wasn't clear from your original post whether or not you thought some restriction was needed, only that this one was pointless. Do you have something less pointless, but still limiting, to suggest?

I think an unrelaible allie should be able to to reform his defenses with retiring moves, the negotiations to change sides might not be going well and remember some allies are never going to change sides just not participate.

No matter if your relaible or not seeing your 'enemy' getting close to you or arround you would prompt any officer ( and more especially the troops ) to adopt a better defense. Leaving a line of Lh(F) to be charged by Lh(S) does not seem to make great tactical sense, the Lh(S) can charge you out of Reliability making range for 1 pip, might make you reliable but might break your command striaght away.

OTOH it seems you are allowed to provoke your enemy because you can move towards him if your move ends 800 paces away from him, so it is ok to make threatening moves well away from your enemy.

Of course one could ask how are you provoking enemy by retiring away from him.

William

MikeCampbell

  • Guest
Re: moving unreliable Allies
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2009, 10:10:50 AM »
Lawrence IMO the intent of the rules is that elements of unreliable commands should not be able to move any closer to enemy who are within 800p - measured from the individual elements concerned.

800p is not "moving to attack" anyone, and the scenario that leads to unreliability on the DBMM battlefield is completely abstracted - you can rationalise any given game, or give causes in a campaign, but IMO you cannot use a single such scenario as a justification for a rule covering all of them.  Especially since you do not (at that point) know what the outcome of the unreliability will be.

LawrenceG

  • Guest
Re: moving unreliable Allies
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2009, 12:40:37 PM »
Lawrence IMO the intent of the rules is that elements of unreliable commands should not be able to move any closer to enemy who are within 800p - measured from the individual elements concerned.

OK, I get it that the intended rule, and the way most people play it, is the same as DBM, he just worded it differently in MM and confused me.

Quote

800p is not "moving to attack" anyone, and the scenario that leads to unreliability on the DBMM battlefield is completely abstracted - you can rationalise any given game, or give causes in a campaign, but IMO you cannot use a single such scenario as a justification for a rule covering all of them.  Especially since you do not (at that point) know what the outcome of the unreliability will be.

I largely agree with that. I was just wondering if you had any specific thoughts on what restrictions unreliable allies should be subject to rather than the simple 800p limit, to better represent the historical behaviour.

MikeCampbell

  • Guest
Re: moving unreliable Allies
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2009, 11:33:09 PM »
IMO the limitation on moving closer if within 800p is ample.